• 2 months ago
#supremecourt #constitutionalamendments #pmlngovt #pti #senate #nationalassembly #supremecourt #supremecourtjudges #chaudhryghulamhussain #khawarghumman #hassanayub

Supreme Court kay Judges ki Tadad Main Izafah Wakht ki Zarurat ya...? Abid Zuberi's Detail Analysis
Transcript
00:00I will tell you about Contempt of Court, right now there is no law.
00:07The punishments given under Contempt of Court, I don't know which law was used.
00:12Because in 2012, when Yusuf Raza Ghilani's Contempt of Court case was going on,
00:19at that time he had made a law which was struck down by Supreme Court.
00:23So, INA Pakistan says, I guess Article 264,
00:27when you strike down a law, the old law doesn't get enforced automatically.
00:36So, I believe this issue, Contempt of Court, why was it needed to be clarified,
00:42or what is it, I don't understand, and which laws were used.
00:45On Friday, you know, when it happened, Faisal Bawda Sahab had made a conference.
00:52See, Faisal Bawda Sahab, many people get a notice of Contempt,
00:56you shouldn't violate your rights.
00:57Dear viewers, we have with us the President of the former Supreme Court Bar.
01:01We know from him that all these cases, about increasing the number of judges,
01:05and the bill which is being presented to end the law of Contempt of Court.
01:10Dear viewers, first of all tell us, that in routine, if the number of judges has to increase,
01:18and that too in the Supreme Court, then this opinion, suggestion, demand,
01:24this generates normally, in the tradition, or what has been there,
01:30the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judicial Commission, who says this?
01:34Of course, the law has to be passed by the government of the time,
01:36has to come through the Parliament, but there is an institution,
01:39the head of that institution will demand, that I want more judges, or something like this.
01:42In the past, what has been the custom?
01:44In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
01:46Mr. Shukriya Govind, see, the custom has always been, the tradition has always been,
01:50that if you want to make any change in the matter of Judiciary, or bring any law,
01:56then always, from the Superior Judiciary, i.e. the Chief Justice of Pakistan,
02:00or from his colleagues, they used to ask and bring such changes.
02:05Now see here, it is being talked about increasing the number of judges,
02:09and the same old things, that justice, justice for justice, and these things,
02:14and the cases are very pending.
02:16There is no Court of First Instance, other than Article 184.3,
02:19there are appeals, there is no trial in the Supreme Court, as such.
02:23So, they say that there is so much pendency, and justice is not being given,
02:27and an example is given, that a criminal case was delayed,
02:30and the deceased person was killed.
02:33So, these things, these are all excuses.
02:36The point is that, you yourself saw, there are 17 judges present this time,
02:39so 19 judges should work this time, there are 2 ad-hoc judges.
02:42And suppose, if you want more judges,
02:45then the Judicial Commission appoints 2 more ad-hoc judges.
02:49I mean, what is the point of increasing the number of judges?
02:52That too, a private member bill, that too, a person who was previously in PTI,
02:55now he is in JUI, and I have heard that he has been given a show-call notice from that party.
02:59So, now see, the government, this Gauhar,
03:02which Gauhar talked about, Barrister Gauhar Ali Khan, who is the chairman of PTI,
03:05he said, see, this cannot be done with private member bills,
03:09because in this, Article 74 is there, which says that,
03:12where there is a decision to be drawn from the Federal Consolidated Fund,
03:15the salaries will be drawn, for that, the Federal Government has to move the bill.
03:19Then Article 81 clearly says that,
03:22salaries will be given on the Consolidated Fund,
03:25of the Supreme Court judges and the Islamabad High Court.
03:28So, all this is also present.
03:30All these things being there, a private member bill was brought in.
03:33If the government was serious, and the public was in so much pain,
03:36then why didn't the government move it?
03:39Now, Hassan will also ask you a question.
03:42See, I don't know if you need an opinion, whatever it is,
03:45please tell us a little about the law of the Contempt of Court.
03:49So, the law is there?
03:52Yes, the law is there.
03:53Does the court have the authority?
03:55Under which article does the court have the authority?
03:58See, this article, whether this law is there or not,
04:01this Contempt of Court Ordinance of 2003,
04:04and this has also been upholded by the Supreme Court.
04:07The full bench of the Supreme Court had also upholded this law in 2003.
04:11So, 2004 is the judgement of the Supreme Court.
04:14Sir, it was repealed in 2012, right?
04:17No, that was the Contempt of Court Act.
04:20No, that was the Contempt of Court Act, which was brought in 2012.
04:23It was declared by the Supreme Court,
04:25that it is the case of the late Baaz Mohammad Bakarkat of 2012.
04:28So, the law that is applicable today is of 2003,
04:31Contempt of Court Act.
04:33And it was also upholded earlier, and also later.
04:35But if you see, even if these articles are not there,
04:38Article 204 gives the power to the Supreme Court and the High Court
04:43to decide who can appeal in Contempt.
04:45Recently, it was invoked when the notice was taken from the Supreme Court.
04:48Yes, so see, if these articles are repealed,
04:50who will suffer the loss of repeal?
04:51All of us will.
04:52Me, you, and all these registrars.
04:54Because see, it is written in it,
04:56if two judges appeal in Contempt,
04:58then you can appeal in front of three judges.
04:59If three judges appeal, then you can appeal in front of five judges.
05:01If five judges appeal, then you can appeal in front of seven judges.
05:03So, there is a section 19 of the Appeal,
05:04in which you can appeal.
05:05If three judges of the Supreme Court appeal in Contempt,
05:08then you can appeal in front of five judges in the Supreme Court.
05:11So, you can finish it.
05:12Sir, what does Article 264 say?
05:14I am forgetting.
05:15Article 264 of the Constitution.
05:17See, Article 264 says,
05:19that even if a law is repealed,
05:21even if a law is repealed,
05:22the proceedings that are going on in it,
05:24will continue.
05:25This is that law.
05:26Article 264.
05:27So, it goes beyond that.
05:29Even if a law is repealed,
05:30even if a law is repealed,
05:31its effect will be like that of a police officer.
05:32Mr. Chaudhary wants to ask you a question.
05:34Mr. Chaudhary wants to ask you a question.
05:35In your opinion,
05:36is there a law?
05:37No, there is not.
05:38So, a senior lawmaker is presenting it.
05:42I am surprised about this.
05:45I am surprised about these lawyers.
05:47Look at this bill.
05:48I am surprised about them.
05:49You see,
05:50They are mentioning Contempt.
05:52Yes, yes.
05:53Sir, listen.
05:54Mr. Zubairi.
05:55Listen to this.
05:56Mr. Zubairi is referring to the 2003 ordinance which has been upholded by the Supreme Court.
06:03He is saying that it has been repealed.
06:04Sir, it has been upholded, but when the new law was passed in 2012, the old law was abolished.
06:10He abolished the Act and said that the old law can't be repealed.
06:12Supreme Court had declared that the Contravention of the Court Act of 2012 will remain the same as it was in 2003.
06:19Let's go.
06:19It is the judgment of Baaz Mohammad Kakar.
06:21It is based on the judgment, not the law.

Recommended